Trinity

[pineapplebunnybounce]

Crusades.

Crusades? Are you serious? Do you honestly believe that papal doctrine is anything like the doctrine given in the New Testament? Have you studied papal doctrine? Have you really studied the New Testament?

Papal doctrine, in case you didn't know, is like Islam in so far as it does nothing to rid us of the cause of living by lies and delusion and much to encourage it.

Just to give you some idea of the history of the Roman Catholic Church if you don't know already...


There came a time in Europe in the 16th century when enough Christians within the Roman Catholic Church were led to see how far the New Testament message had been twisted and altered by the papacy. The Reformation movement then started gaining a fast growing momentum as more and more enlightened Christians began speaking out against this corruption. But fearing the protest movement would spread throughout Europe and beyond, the established church began persecuting Protestants as they were then called. Many were tortured and put to death if they did not recant their new Reformed beliefs and stop denouncing papal doctrine. Such persecution clearly exposed the depth of the depravity of the papacy as more and more Protestants were tortured to death.

Protestants were then left with no choice but to start a new church, a 'Reformed Church', based on what they believed from reading and reasoning from the Scriptures.

So when you mention the word “Crusades” again, please try and remember who was in charge at the time and how corrupt the Roman Catholic Church was when the Crusades were being organised. Remember also that it was the continued barbaric persecution of Protestants that was largely responsible for igniting religious wars across Europe that would last for centuries.

That was history and thanks to the Reformation we are now living in more enlightened times, although I hasten to add that I am well aware of just how corrupt many Protestant preachers still are. Since the Reformation there must have been thousands of various anti-pope churches formed, and many are still as corrupt and vicious as Rome ever was, but not all; a growing number of people across the world are believing what the Word tells them, not what a vile corrupt church hierarchy tells them.


Every time I hear news reports of Roman Catholic priests who were reported for sexually abusing children, and were then allowed to remain in office by their bishops, and were eventually secretly moved to a new parish and allowed to start the whole process of child abuse over again, it only goes to prove once more that deep down nothing has really changed in the papal psyche since the church first became governed by Rome. By the time the Roman emperors finally made Christianity the state religion, the rot was well and truly setting in.

It is also interesting to note that in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in paragraph 841 it is written, 'The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day.'

You missed my point.

Your whole essay was about how allah can't be the proven conveyor of truth or something because muslims are violent. Just reminding you that your own religion is quite familiar with violence in the name of god as well. Few hundred years from now, muslims will be saying what you are saying, that those were savage times and the religion was corrupted but now they're all better and they have nothing to do with that.

You guys are all the same. You do shit because you read it from a book and you believe it's good.

[old man]

Crusades? Are you serious? Do you honestly believe that papal doctrine is anything like the doctrine given in the New Testament? Have you studied papal doctrine? Have you really studied the New Testament?

Papal doctrine, in case you didn't know, is like Islam in so far as it does nothing to rid us of the cause of living by lies and delusion and much to encourage it.

Just to give you some idea of the history of the Roman Catholic Church if you don't know already...


There came a time in Europe in the 16th century when enough Christians within the Roman Catholic Church were led to see how far the New Testament message had been twisted and altered by the papacy. The Reformation movement then started gaining a fast growing momentum as more and more enlightened Christians began speaking out against this corruption. But fearing the protest movement would spread throughout Europe and beyond, the established church began persecuting Protestants as they were then called. Many were tortured and put to death if they did not recant their new Reformed beliefs and stop denouncing papal doctrine. Such persecution clearly exposed the depth of the depravity of the papacy as more and more Protestants were tortured to death.

Protestants were then left with no choice but to start a new church, a 'Reformed Church', based on what they believed from reading and reasoning from the Scriptures.

So when you mention the word “Crusades” again, please try and remember who was in charge at the time and how corrupt the Roman Catholic Church was when the Crusades were being organised. Remember also that it was the continued barbaric persecution of Protestants that was largely responsible for igniting religious wars across Europe that would last for centuries.

That was history and thanks to the Reformation we are now living in more enlightened times, although I hasten to add that I am well aware of just how corrupt many Protestant preachers still are. Since the Reformation there must have been thousands of various anti-pope churches formed, and many are still as corrupt and vicious as Rome ever was, but not all; a growing number of people across the world are believing what the Word tells them, not what a vile corrupt church hierarchy tells them.


Every time I hear news reports of Roman Catholic priests who were reported for sexually abusing children, and were then allowed to remain in office by their bishops, and were eventually secretly moved to a new parish and allowed to start the whole process of child abuse over again, it only goes to prove once more that deep down nothing has really changed in the papal psyche since the church first became governed by Rome. By the time the Roman emperors finally made Christianity the state religion, the rot was well and truly setting in.

It is also interesting to note that in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in paragraph 841 it is written, 'The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day.'

You missed my point.

Your whole essay was about how allah can't be the proven conveyor of truth or something because muslims are violent. Just reminding you that your own religion is quite familiar with violence in the name of god as well. Few hundred years from now, muslims will be saying what you are saying, that those were savage times and the religion was corrupted but now they're all better and they have nothing to do with that.

You guys are all the same. You do shit because you read it from a book and you believe it's good.

What can I say with out repeating myself?

Freedom is the freedom to choose your reasoning or mine.

Best wishes

[Bad Writer]

What more can you say? Try some intellectual honesty, and whole slew of new thoughts and ideas will come to you.

[old man]

like I said, freedom is the freedom to choose

[Bad Writer]

like I said, freedom is the freedom to choose

You may want to rephrase your little adage by saying "Freedom is the ability to choose." That gets rid of redundancy and circularity.

But, to you, that's all freedom is? Imagine yourself as a person of power, as someone that makes decisions for other people every day. In this instance, you can make infinite decisions, but you are bound by every one of them, for they affect you and many others in the grand scheme of things. Being bound is not being free, but you can continue with this delusion if you want.

The fact is, freedom may not be as liberal with you as you'd like to think it is, but we still make of it what we can. Simply having a choice does not make us free; what we do with that choice is what makes us free (but always to a defined extent).

[Minimalist]

The Reformation movement then started gaining a fast growing momentum as more and more enlightened Christians began speaking out against this corruption.

I bet this old fuck head doesn't think his precious protestants had any atrocities of their own?

I. PROTESTANT INTOLERANCE: AN INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

1. Views of Catholic and Protestant Historians

A. Johann von Dollinger

"Historically nothing is more incorrect than the assertion that the Reformation was a movement in favour of intellectual freedom. The exact contary is the truth. For themselves, it is true, Lutherans and Calvinists claimed liberty of conscience . . . but to grant it to others never occurred to them so long as they were the stronger side. The complete extirpation of the Catholic Church, and in fact of everything that stood in their way, was regarded by the reformers as something entirely natural." (51;v.6:268-9/1)

B. Preserved Smith (Secularist)

"If any one still harbors the traditional prejudice that the early Protestants were more liberal, he must be undeceived. Save for a few splendid sayings of Luther, confined to the early years when he was powerless, there is hardly anything to be found among the leading reformers in favor of freedom of conscience. As soon as they had the power to persecute they did." (115:177)

C. Hartmann Grisar

"At Zurich, Zwingli's State-Church grew up much as Luther's did . . . Oecolampadius at Basle and Zwingli's successor, Bullinger, were strong compulsionists. Calvin's name is even more closely bound up with the idea of religious absolutism, while the task of handing down to posterity his harsh doctrine of religious compulsion was undertaken by Beza in his notorious work, On the Duty of Civil Magistrates to Punish Heretics. The annals of the Established Church of England were likewise at the outset written in blood." (51;v.6:278)

D. Henry Hallam (P)

"The Reform was brought about by intemperate and calumnious abuse, by outrages of an excited populace or by the tyranny of princes . . . it instantly withdrew . . . liberty of judgment and devoted all who presumed to swerve from the line drawn by law to virulent obloquy, and sometimes to bonds and death. These reproaches, it may be a shame to us to own, can be uttered and cannot be refuted." (50:295-6/2)

E. Francois Guizot (P)

"The Reformation of the 16th century was not aware of the true principles of intellectual liberty . . . At the very moment it was demanding these rights for itself it was violating them towards others." (50:297/3)

F. William Lecky (P)

"What shall we say of a church . . . that had as yet no services to show, no claims upon the gratitude of mankind . . . which nevertheless suppressed by force a worship that multitudes deemed necessary to salvation? . . . So strong and so general was its intolerance that for some time it may, I believe, be truly said that there were more instances of partial toleration being advocated by Roman Catholics than by orthodox Protestants. " (50:298/4)

G. Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (P)

"The Reformers themselves . . . e.g., Luther, Beza, and especially Calvin, were as intolerant to dissentients as the Roman Catholic Church." (78:1383)

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apol...protin.htm

[old man]

like I said, freedom is the freedom to choose

You may want to rephrase your little adage by saying "Freedom is the ability to choose." That gets rid of redundancy and circularity.

But, to you, that's all freedom is? Imagine yourself as a person of power, as someone that makes decisions for other people every day. In this instance, you can make infinite decisions, but you are bound by every one of them, for they affect you and many others in the grand scheme of things. Being bound is not being free, but you can continue with this delusion if you want.

The fact is, freedom may not be as liberal with you as you'd like to think it is, but we still make of it what we can. Simply having a choice does not make us free; what we do with that choice is what makes us free (but always to a defined extent).

Before any of us can have the ability to choose between good and evil we must first know the difference between good and evil. Freedom is the freedom to choose for those of us who can see.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

like I said, freedom is the freedom to choose

Of course I can choose what reasoning I accept. That's why you're trying to convince me, otherwise we won't be having this conversation because neither of us will be able to change our minds.

????

What's the point of stating something like this?

[Bad Writer]

He's out of ideas so he resorts to platitudes.

[Minimalist]

He could be pope.